Venice (or Italy)

Where I most disagree (my omissions):
1. Maya - Truthfully, I just didn't see it. But you could make the case that (1) they weren't unified and (2) there are other Mesoamerican cultures that could be used to replace them. I'd still have the Maya, though, possibly in my top-10.

Click to expand...

You're kinda selling the Maya short there. The Classical Greeks weren't unified and they are in as a Civ. The Maya left numerous remains of socially/technologically advanced cities. The other Mesoamerican cultures (Zapotecs, Olmecs, Tarascans, Mixtecs, Totonacs, Teotihuacan) aren't as well attested in history and potential leaders as the Maya, thanks to the successful decipherment of the Maya glyphs. I would consider the Maya more important than the Aztecs in the grand scheme of things, especially with regards to Mesoamerican history. Yet unfortunately, stereotypes and pop culture has enabled the Aztecs to be present in the game since Civ1.

Yet unfortunately, stereotypes and pop culture has enabled the Aztecs to be present in the game since Civ1.

Click to expand...

You're kinda selling the Aztecs short there.

Tenochtitlan had a population of 200,000 before the Spanish conquest - the same as a large European city at the time. The pop culture aspect reduces Montezuma to a caricature, but the Triple Alliance is as worthy an addition to the game as anyone.

Obviously the Maya are too, and perhaps more influential in the development of mesoamerican culture. But the obvious answer is that both civs should have been in since Day 1 .

Tenochtitlan had a population of 200,000 before the Spanish conquest - the same as a large European city at the time. The pop culture aspect reduces Montezuma to a caricature, but the Triple Alliance is as worthy an addition to the game as anyone.

Obviously the Maya are too, and perhaps more influential in the development of mesoamerican culture. But the obvious answer is that both civs should have been in since Day 1 .

Click to expand...

Sure, I'll agree the Aztecs are worthy to be a Civ. I'm just not satisfied with their recent portrayals, especially the Aztec leader's appearance.

From this (pretty historically accurate portrayal).....
to this fantastical monstrosity

I care a lot more about interesting gameplay than I do about the identity of the civ. The Nubians and the workshop mod Mississipians are great, not because I have some deep interest in the real-life Nubians or Mississipians, but because they make fun and interesting civs to play. The Germans and Macedonians are great because they make excellent opponents. To some extent ditto Kongo and Brazil. America and England are terrible, not because I dislike the real life version of either one, but because they are yawns from either perspective.

So... I am looking to see additions which either offer interesting strategic challenges, distinct from most civs. Or civs that are highly effective as AI opponents, which generally means not focused on religious victory. Lots of bonus points for being obnoxious and expansive, but then being effective at using added territory to move towards a cultural or science victory.

You're kinda selling the Maya short there. The Classical Greeks weren't unified and they are in as a Civ. The Maya left numerous remains of socially/technologically advanced cities. The other Mesoamerican cultures (Zapotecs, Olmecs, Tarascans, Mixtecs, Totonacs, Teotihuacan) aren't as well attested in history and potential leaders as the Maya, thanks to the successful decipherment of the Maya glyphs. I would consider the Maya more important than the Aztecs in the grand scheme of things, especially with regards to Mesoamerican history. Yet unfortunately, stereotypes and pop culture has enabled the Aztecs to be present in the game since Civ1.

Click to expand...

I would have both the Inca and the Maya over the Aztecs (unless you view modern Mexico as an extension of the Mexica). All I'm saying is that I see them less of an essential civ than the consensus. But the reason I didn't vote for them is that I didn't see them.

I failed to mention one more thing about Lydia, namely that Coin Mint could be their Unique Tile Improvement. Since they invented coinage, seems very plausible. These would gain substantial gold and amenities bonuses for a Lydian player.

Here's my list of Civilizations that have never appeared in the Civ series up to now: (discounting mods-of course)
Civ name followed by - potential best victory type

1 LYDIA - commerce/culture/domination
2 KHAZARIA - domination/religion/trade
3 CRIMEAN KHANATE - domination/religion/trade
4 MEDIA (Medes/Median-Medean Empire) - culture/military/craftsmanship-art
5 ELAM - culture/religion
6 ARMENIA (classical-ancient state of Armenia was a major power in the Near East) - Trade/Religion/Highland bonus
7 TIBET - very original due to potential not only hill tile bonuses, but mountains as well ( and was a free state, a quite large one, in late classic/early medieval era) religion,culture, hill/mountain bonus
8 BULGARIA - long history, from warlike nomadic people to a powerful (Slavic) empire in the Balkans. - military/religion/culture
9 THRACIA (Thrace) - we know of only of few leaders and cities (Seuthopolis-capital) as they were more of a collection of tribes than a unified country, however, longtime rivals of ancient Greeks would be great to have in the game.
10. ISRAEL (Judah, Judea, Hebrews) religion/culture/commerce-trade
11 PHOENICIA - Maritime/Trade-Commerce/Science and Culture would apply
12 BURMA - religion/isolationist/militarist and culture
13 MUGHALS - domination/religion/trade-commerce
14 TIMURID empire (gurkani) - domination/conquest/religion/trade
15 ASHANTI (Ghana) - culture, trade, military-or religion
16 PRUSSIA - was an independent, centralized country, separate from Germany and a major European military power for centuries - domination-heavy militarist, also great in science & culture
17 GOTHS (not sure of the formal name) - Celts were featured in Civ since Civ 2, Goths were just as accomplished, if not more (conquered Rome, created states/countries) - domination/conquest, culture
18 ETRUSCANS - great culture, scientific and quite militaristic
19 MINOANS - fascinating culture, also religious, merchants and a Naval power
20 SARMATIANS - I mean, Female (virgin) warriors on horseback! you want more females in the game, right Firaxis? Then why not finally give us Female Military Units? Especially that they did, in fact, exist, fight and die alongside their male (Sarmatian) warriors. And, no, Sarmatian/Sauromatian, isn't the same as Scythian. Domination/Reiligion/Culture
21 HUNGARY - it's about time, really
22 ITALY - as an actual entity, not only Venice, just like with the Hungarians, but even more so, come on Firaxis... culture/religion/art-craftsmanship/militaristic
23 WENDS - The now gone Wends were western Slavs who lived in the lands of the former East Germany, along Baltic Coast and inland, from Oder/Odra river up to Labe/Laba river in the west. Fascinating culture. Similar to Celts: Militaristic, Religious and Agrarian
24. SAXONS - militaristic/domination/religious
25 NORMANDY - for William the Conqueror, yes, he came from France
26 GAUL - militarist/religious/culture-agrarian
27 BRITONS/WELSH just like Gauls of France and Northern Italy, however, with separate Leaders and Uniques (and language/dialects)
28 FRANKIA - call it that (Franks-Frankish empire isn't really formal-proper) ,give them the capital of Aachen - their proper capital, and Charlemagne as Leader.
29 DACIA/WALACHIA/ROMANIA - worthy addition
30 SWITZERLAND - Neutral! also, strong culture/science and mountain/hill bonus
31 SHAWNEE - Tecumseh formed a strong confederacy, dreamed of a Native American Empire, a country like the European model.
32 APACHE - warlike/desert bonus - Geronimo as leader
33 CHEROKEE - best known of the Five Civilized Tribes
34 INUIT - tundra and ice tile bonuses
35 TOLTECS (or perhaps OLMECS) for culture and religion
36 UKRAINE/KIYEVAN RUS - culture/religion/military

Wanted to go on till I reach 50 but real life calls, well, anyway, there it is for now.

Minoan civilization would be more than appropriate for first inclusion in Civ game at some point, if not right now. It was a civilization with big C, the first in Europe, with dozens of cities centered on monumental palaces (unique building/district?), developed writing, paved streets, rich mythology and art to draw inspiration from (Minotaur, labyrinth, bull leaping, Phaistos disc...). Bronze Age civilization are rare in Civ, and this one has all that semi-legendary flavor of an early civilization that you want to play with. Of course, portrayal of the leader (legendary king Minos) and language would have to be left to developers' imagination, but why not?

I failed to mention one more thing about Lydia, namely that Coin Mint could be their Unique Tile Improvement. Since they invented coinage, seems very plausible. These would gain substantial gold and amenities bonuses for a Lydian player.

Click to expand...

Debatable. But this wouldn't be the first time Civ has taken Herodotus at face value.

Minoan civilization would be more than appropriate for first inclusion in Civ game at some point, if not right now. It was a civilization with big C, the first in Europe, with dozens of cities centered on monumental palaces (unique building/district?), developed writing, paved streets, rich mythology and art to draw inspiration from (Minotaur, labyrinth, bull leaping, Phaistos disc...). Bronze Age civilization are rare in Civ, and this one has all that semi-legendary flavor of an early civilization that you want to play with. Of course, portrayal of the leader (legendary king Minos) and language would have to be left to developers' imagination, but why not?

Click to expand...

They'd be generally cool. But do we actually call them Minoan? My understanding is that their name at the time would be something more like Crete.

Debatable. But this wouldn't be the first time Civ has taken Herodotus at face value.

They'd be generally cool. But do we actually call them Minoan? My understanding is that their name at the time would be something more like Crete.

Click to expand...

We don't know what they called themselves. We have examples of Linear A but so far it is not able to be deciphered. We can decipher some Etruscan but I believe have a problems with verbs(?). There are many state level civilizations that we know existed but only have archaeological evidence of or second hand accounts of: Moche, Chimu, Nazca, Olmecs, Ancient Zimbabwe, The various Swahili states, Tiwanaku, Minoans, Harappa, etc.

They really have to do post expac DLCs. I don't think a third expansion will be likely; keeping the 2 expansion model has worked for IV and V, and I don't see anything about VI feature/mechanic-wise that would dictate that a 3rd expansion will be necessary. a UN is really the only MAJOR missing feature from franchise history at this point, and beyond maybe an economic victory condition and a couple other new ideas or reworks of smaller ideas of the past, i don't know what else they add in a third expac without overbloating the game.

Thus, given that it seems everyone (myself included) had a hard time narrowing down to 10, further DLC packs seems like a necessity for us nerds, and easy money for 2k/firaxis. It'd be gross negligence to not offer DLCs. What further makes me say this is that not only do we have missing Civs, but I desperately think they should add some alt leader packs that help satisfy what I think is a bit of a vacuum for series classics. Sure we're getting Genghis and seemingly Shaka here. But we're still missing Washington/Lincoln, Bismarck, Elizabeth I, Isabella, Julius Caesar/Caesar Augustus, Nobunaga, Louis XIV/Napoleon. All of these seem like they would be instant sellers and all have potential mechanics that both honor their legacy in the series as well as fit in with VI mechanics. Further you have lots of interesting choices that may not have the legacy of these leaders within Civ, but also offer really interesting opportunities (Jefferson, MLK, Churchill, Charlemagne. A few alt leader DLC packs might be pricey for them to do because they'd need to animate a leader and hire voice actors, but very little work needs to be done outside of that, only one additional ability, no new city names or graphics or icons or anything like that. Plus it could leave VI, at the end of it all, feeling like the most fleshed out and varied Civ title ever. Would give it so much staying power.

They really have to do post expac DLCs. I don't think a third expansion will be likely; keeping the 2 expansion model has worked for IV and V, and I don't see anything about VI feature/mechanic-wise that would dictate that a 3rd expansion will be necessary. a UN is really the only MAJOR missing feature from franchise history at this point, and beyond maybe an economic victory condition and a couple other new ideas or reworks of smaller ideas of the past, i don't know what else they add in a third expac without overbloating the game.

Thus, given that it seems everyone (myself included) had a hard time narrowing down to 10, further DLC packs seems like a necessity for us nerds, and easy money for 2k/firaxis. It'd be gross negligence to not offer DLCs. What further makes me say this is that not only do we have missing Civs, but I desperately think they should add some alt leader packs that help satisfy what I think is a bit of a vacuum for series classics. Sure we're getting Genghis and seemingly Shaka here. But we're still missing Washington/Lincoln, Bismarck, Elizabeth I, Isabella, Julius Caesar/Caesar Augustus, Nobunaga, Louis XIV/Napoleon. All of these seem like they would be instant sellers and all have potential mechanics that both honor their legacy in the series as well as fit in with VI mechanics. Further you have lots of interesting choices that may not have the legacy of these leaders within Civ, but also offer really interesting opportunities (Jefferson, MLK, Churchill, Charlemagne. A few alt leader DLC packs might be pricey for them to do because they'd need to animate a leader and hire voice actors, but very little work needs to be done outside of that, only one additional ability, no new city names or graphics or icons or anything like that. Plus it could leave VI, at the end of it all, feeling like the most fleshed out and varied Civ title ever. Would give it so much staying power.

Firaxis please, lets get some alt leader and popular choice Civ DLCs.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Really would love to see an alternate leader for the Mongols. Kublai Khaan would be great or even a female leader like Khutulun or Mandukhai. Kublai Khaan would be great for culture/economics and a female Mongol leader would be a refreshing change. Very appropriate too as females have always held a high status in Mongol society even to this day. It wouldn’t feel forced like some other female Civ leaders.

2 Corinthians 4:18 New King James Version (NKJV)
18 while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Here's my list of Civilizations that have never appeared in the Civ series up to now: (discounting mods-of course)
Civ name followed by - potential best victory type

1 LYDIA - commerce/culture/domination
2 KHAZARIA - domination/religion/trade
3 CRIMEAN KHANATE - domination/religion/trade
4 MEDIA (Medes/Median-Medean Empire) - culture/military/craftsmanship-art
5 ELAM - culture/religion
6 ARMENIA (classical-ancient state of Armenia was a major power in the Near East) - Trade/Religion/Highland bonus
7 TIBET - very original due to potential not only hill tile bonuses, but mountains as well ( and was a free state, a quite large one, in late classic/early medieval era) religion,culture, hill/mountain bonus
8 BULGARIA - long history, from warlike nomadic people to a powerful (Slavic) empire in the Balkans. - military/religion/culture
9 THRACIA (Thrace) - we know of only of few leaders and cities (Seuthopolis-capital) as they were more of a collection of tribes than a unified country, however, longtime rivals of ancient Greeks would be great to have in the game.
10. ISRAEL (Judah, Judea, Hebrews) religion/culture/commerce-trade
11 PHOENICIA - Maritime/Trade-Commerce/Science and Culture would apply
12 BURMA - religion/isolationist/militarist and culture
13 MUGHALS - domination/religion/trade-commerce
14 TIMURID empire (gurkani) - domination/conquest/religion/trade
15 ASHANTI (Ghana) - culture, trade, military-or religion
16 PRUSSIA - was an independent, centralized country, separate from Germany and a major European military power for centuries - domination-heavy militarist, also great in science & culture
17 GOTHS (not sure of the formal name) - Celts were featured in Civ since Civ 2, Goths were just as accomplished, if not more (conquered Rome, created states/countries) - domination/conquest, culture
18 ETRUSCANS - great culture, scientific and quite militaristic
19 MINOANS - fascinating culture, also religious, merchants and a Naval power
20 SARMATIANS - I mean, Female (virgin) warriors on horseback! you want more females in the game, right Firaxis? Then why not finally give us Female Military Units? Especially that they did, in fact, exist, fight and die alongside their male (Sarmatian) warriors. And, no, Sarmatian/Sauromatian, isn't the same as Scythian. Domination/Reiligion/Culture
21 HUNGARY - it's about time, really
22 ITALY - as an actual entity, not only Venice, just like with the Hungarians, but even more so, come on Firaxis... culture/religion/art-craftsmanship/militaristic
23 WENDS - The now gone Wends were western Slavs who lived in the lands of the former East Germany, along Baltic Coast and inland, from Oder/Odra river up to Labe/Laba river in the west. Fascinating culture. Similar to Celts: Militaristic, Religious and Agrarian
24. SAXONS - militaristic/domination/religious
25 NORMANDY - for William the Conqueror, yes, he came from France
26 GAUL - militarist/religious/culture-agrarian
27 BRITONS/WELSH just like Gauls of France and Northern Italy, however, with separate Leaders and Uniques (and language/dialects)
28 FRANKIA - call it that (Franks-Frankish empire isn't really formal-proper) ,give them the capital of Aachen - their proper capital, and Charlemagne as Leader.
29 DACIA/WALACHIA/ROMANIA - worthy addition
30 SWITZERLAND - Neutral! also, strong culture/science and mountain/hill bonus
31 SHAWNEE - Tecumseh formed a strong confederacy, dreamed of a Native American Empire, a country like the European model.
32 APACHE - warlike/desert bonus - Geronimo as leader
33 CHEROKEE - best known of the Five Civilized Tribes
34 INUIT - tundra and ice tile bonuses
35 TOLTECS (or perhaps OLMECS) for culture and religion
36 UKRAINE/KIYEVAN RUS - culture/religion/military

Wanted to go on till I reach 50 but real life calls, well, anyway, there it is for now.

Click to expand...

I've bolded the five most needed choices. I'd italicize a few more that are probable, but quotes. There's only half dozen or so anyway. The rest are honestly pretty arbitrary, small, and/or loosely organized regions; they could always happen, but we wouldn't see them coming through the fog of so many other samey civs in their regions.

Aaah, this was hard... voted Assyria/Babylon/Carthage/Ethiopia/Inca/Mali/Maya/Morocco/Maori (no Polynesia please, yikes!)/Siam. Mostly because I feel assured that other mainstays like the Ottomans, Portugal and Byzantium will get plenty of votes on their own.

Considering the wealth of options, the idea of only eight more new civs is starting to seem very hard to bear. But if I had to choose (combining old/new):

Navajo

Maya

Portugal

Ottomans

Babylon

Mali

Vietnam

Maori

Alternate leader for Egypt (my preference is for Hatshepsut, but there are certainly plentiful options. Just emphatically one who predates Classical antiquity.)

With DLC (let's assume the same number as the pre-R&F cycle)

a Byzantium/Ottomans DLC pack; substitute Syria for the Ottomans in a hypothetical second xpac